Eastman Kodak Company v. Altek Corporation

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 106 Motion for Reconsideration. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/24/2013) (gr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
:
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
ALTEK CORPORATION,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------X

12 Civ. 0246 (DLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

DENISE COTE, District Judge:
An Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2013 (“March 29
Opinion”) granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment and denied the defendant’s motion for partial summary
judgment.

On April 12, Altek submitted a motion for

reconsideration of the March 29 Opinion.

Familiarity with the

facts of this case, as set out in the March 29 Opinion, is
assumed.
The standard for reconsideration is strict, and
“reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

Shrader
“[A]

motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving
party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.”

Id.

Likewise, a party moving for reconsideration may not “advance
new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the
Court.”

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos.,

Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

The

decision to grant or deny the motion for reconsideration is
within “the sound discretion of the district court.”

Aczel v.

Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Altek’s motion for reconsideration does not satisfy this
standard.
two points.

Altek’s motion for reconsideration makes principally
First, Altek argues that the interpretation of

“open market price” in the March 29 Opinion erroneously relied
on extrinsic evidence.

Altek misreads the March 29 Opinion.

The Opinion concluded that the term “Altek’s open market price”
in Section 1.13(b) of the PLA unambiguously refers to “the price
existing in the open market in which Altek itself sells its
digital cameras.”

To reach this conclusion, the Opinion did not

rely on extrinsic evidence.

Then, applying the plain meaning of

“Altek’s open market price” to the undisputed facts of this
case, the Opinion concluded that in Section 1.13(b) “Altek’s
open market price” is synonymous with wholesale market price.
Finally, it concluded that “open market price” has the same
meaning in Sections 1.13(b) and 4.14.
Second, Altek argues that the analysis in the March 29
Opinion demonstrates that “Retail Price” is a reasonable

2

interpretation of the term “open market price,” and thus summary
judgment was not warranted.

In particular, Altek argues that if

it made sales of cameras under Section 1.13(a)(3) of the PLA -a section that is not at issue in this case -- those sales would
be made in the retail market.

As a result, the term “Altek’s

open market price” in Section 1.13(a)(3) must refer to retail
price.

Thus, Altek concludes, “Retail Price” is a reasonable

interpretation of “open market price” in the PLA and summary
judgment was not warranted.

Altek’s second argument fails for

three reasons.
First, Altek is not entitled to advance arguments that were
not previously raised in the motions for summary judgment.
Second, to the extent Altek seeks to relitigate the issue of
whether “Retail Price” is a reasonable interpretation of “open
market price” in Section 4.14 of the PLA, that is not the
purpose of a motion for reconsideration.

Finally, this argument

suffers from the same flaw exhibited by Altek’s first argument.
As described above, the March 29 Opinion concluded that “Altek’s
open market price” refers to “the price existing in the open
market in which Altek itself sells its digital cameras.”
this interpretation that is consistent throughout the PLA.

It is
The

issue of whether or not the sales Altek makes pursuant to
Section 1.13(a)(3) of the PLA are made in the retail market was
not implicated by the parties’ motions for summary judgment and

3

was not decided by the March 29 Opinion.

Accordingly, it is

hereby
ORDERED that the defendant’s April 12 motion for
reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:

New York, New York
April 24, 2013

4